• 05Jan

  Rule 419 and Offerings by Shell or Blank Check Companies

  Securities Attorneys No Comments

  The provisions of Rule 419 apply to every registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by a blank check company. Rule 419 requires that the blank check company filing such registration statement deposit the securities being offered and proceeds of the offering into an escrow or trust account pending the execution of an agreement for an acquisition or merger.

  In addition, the registrant is required to file a post effective amendment to the registration statement containing the same information as found in a Form 10 registration statement, upon the execution of an agreement for such acquisition or merger. The rule provides procedures for the release of the offering funds in conjunction with the post effective acquisition or merger. The obligations to file post effective amendments are in addition to the obligations to file Forms 8-K to report both the entry into a material non-ordinary course agreement and the completion of the transaction. Rule 419 applies to both primary and re-sale or secondary offerings.

  Investors Must Be Notified in Timely Fashion

  Within five (5) days of filing a post effective amendment setting forth the proposed terms of an acquisition, the Company must notify each investor whose shares are in escrow. Each investor then has no fewer than 20 and no greater than 45 business days to notify the Company in writing if they elect to remain an investor. A failure to reply indicates that the person has elected to not remain an investor. As all investors are allotted this second opportunity to determine to remain an investor, acquisition agreements should be conditioned upon enough funds remaining in escrow to close the transaction.

  Intended Purposes

  For purposes of Rule 419 as defined within the Rule, the term “blank check company” means a company that:

  1. Is a development stage company that has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated that its business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies, or other entity or person; and
  2. Is issuing “penny stock,” as defined in Rule 3a51-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

  Definition of a Shell Company

  The definition of “shell company” as set forth in Rule 405 of the Securities Act (and Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) means a Company that has:

  1. No or nominal operations; and
  2. Either:
     1. No or nominal assets;
     2. Assets consisting solely of cash and cash equivalents; or
     3. Assets consisting of any amount of cash and cash equivalents and nominal other assets.

  Although the definitions do not appear to be the same, as per the definitions a “shell company” may have nominal operations and may have a specific business plan, the SEC has firmly held the position that Rule 419 applies equally to shell and development stage companies. Although the SEC position may be subject to challenge by a willing challenger and federal court judge, to date, none of have taken up the fight.

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: definition of shell company, form 10 registration statement, going public, Over The Counter Bulletin Board, registration statement, Reverse Mergers, Rule 419, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, SEC Rule 419, securities attorney

• 01Jan

  Rule 701 – Exemption for Offers and Sales to Employees of Non-Reporting Entities

  SEC Law Firm No Comments

  While the issuance of small numbers of shares as prizes or awards to employees may be made without Securities Act Registration, if such awards are tied to the achievement of specific goals (eg. sales goals) by individual employees, an offer or sale requiring registration may be involved. When tied to the achievement of specific goals, the share awards may constitute compensation for services performed or to be performed by the employees that would amount to a disposition of the shares for value and a “sale” of the shares to employees requiring either registration or an exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933.

  Although many exemptions may be available for the issuance of securities to employees, Rule 701 provides an excellent exemption for non-reporting entities. In particular, Rule 701 is only available to issuers that are not subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act 1934. The beauty of Rule 701 is that ninety days after the Issuer becomes subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, securities issued under this Rule may be resold by persons who are not affiliates under Rule 144 without compliance with the current public information, holding period, amount or Form 144 requirements. That is, generally speaking, ninety days after an Issuer becomes reporting, Rule 701 issued securities may be freely sold. Regardless of whether an Issuer becomes reporting, resales may be made under any available exemption, or pursuant to registration.

  Compliance with Rule 701

  To comply with Rule 701, an Issuer must have a written compensatory benefit plan for the participation of its employees, director, general partners, trustees, officers, or consultants and advisors. Rule 701 is only available for consultants and advisors if: (i) they are natural persons; (ii) they provide bona fide services to the issuer; and (iii) the services are not in connection with the offer or sale of securities in a capital raising transaction, and do not directly or indirectly promote or maintain a market for the issuer’s securities. A copy of the plan must be delivered to all individuals receiving stock under the plan.

  The amount of securities sold in reliance on Rule 701 may not exceed, in any 12 month period, the greater of: (i) $1,000,000; (ii) 15% of the total assets of the issuer; or (iii) 15% of the outstanding amount of the class of securities being offered and sold in reliance on the exemption. Rule 701 issuances do not integrate with the offer and sales of any other securities under the Act whether registered or exempt.

  Antifraud Provisions Still Apply

  As with all other Securities Act registration exemptions, the issuer is still subject to the antifraud, civil liability and other provisions of the federal securities laws. Issuers and persons acting on their behalf have an obligation to provide all investors, including employees, with disclosure adequate to satisfy the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. In addition, Rule 701 is not available for plans or schemes to circumvent the purpose of the Rule, which is for compensatory purposes, and not to raise capital. Moreover, Rule 701 is not available to exempt any transaction that is in technical compliance with this section but is part of a plan or scheme to evade the registration provisions of the Securities Act. Finally, in addition to complying with Rule 701, the Issuer also must comply with any applicable state law relating to the issuance.

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: going public, non-reporting entities, registration exemptions, Reverse Mergers, Rule 10b5-1, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, SEC Rule 10b5-1, securities attorney, securities registration, securities registrations exemptions

• 29Dec

  A Comprehensive Analysis of Section 5

  Securities Attorneys No Comments

  Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, contains the basic registration requirements for all offerings and rules of securities. Section 5(a) provides that “unless a registration statement is in effect as to a security, it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly:

  (1) …to sell such security through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise; or
  (2) …to transmit through the mails or in interstate commerce any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale”

  Section 5(b) provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person directly or indirectly:

  (1) …to transmit through the mails or in interstate commerce, any prospectus relating to a security with respect to which a registration has been filed…., unless such prospectus meets the requirements of Section 10; or
  (2) …to transmit through the mails or in interstate commerce any such security for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale, unless accompanied or preceded by a prospectus that meets the requirements of subsection (a) of Section 10”

  Section 5(c) provides that “it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, … to offer to sell or to offer to buy through the use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, unless a registration statement has been filed as to such security…”
  In order to understand just what Section 5 covers, one must look to the definitions contained in

  Section 2. Section 2 defines a “sale” to include “every contract of sale or disposition of a security, or an interest in a security, for value.” An “offer to sell” and “offer for sale” are defined to include “every attempt to offer or dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or an interest in a security, for value.” Finally, a “security” is defined to include, among other items, any “note, stock, bond, debenture or evidence of indebtedness; any investment contract (including real estate for investment); any security future, put, call, straddle or option on a security; any fractional undivided interest in oil, gas or other mineral rights; any certificate of deposit; and any group or index of securities.”

  Literally read, Section 5 of the Securities Act applies to every sale of every security by every person, with a security including almost anything. Literally read, Section 5 requires a registration statement to be filed before any offer to sell a security could be made. Obviously, the business world could not function within such strict confines and accordingly congress enacted Sections 3 and 4 of the Securities Act to provide exemptions to the strict and all encompassing confines of Section 5.

  However, the business world does have to operate within and understand that Section 5 is all encompassing and that only if a transaction falls within a specifically enumerated exemption in Sections 3 or 4 or the rules and regulations of the SEC, can the requirements of Section 5 be avoided.

  Accordingly, prior to entering into business discussions which could be interpreted as falling under Section 5 of the Securities Act, it is important to consult with and retain the services of experienced securities counsel.

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: Exchange Act Section 5, going public, OTCBB, Over The Counter Bulletin Board, registration statement, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, Section 5, securities act o, securities act of 1933, securities attorney

• 11Dec

  Section 3(a)(9) Exchanges Evaluated

  Reverse Mergers No Comments

  Section 3(a)(9) of the Securities Act of 1933, provides an exemption from the registration requirements for “[E]xcept with respect to a security exchanged in a case under title 11 of the United States Code, any security exchanged by the issuer with its existing security holders exclusively where no commission or other remuneration is paid or given directly or indirectly for soliciting such exchange.” Generally, in an exchange offer, the issuer offers to exchange new debt or equity securities for its outstanding debt or equity securities.

  Since Section 3(a)(9) is a transactional exemption, the new securities issued are subject to the same restrictions on transferability, if any, of the old securities, and any subsequent transfer of the newly issued securities will require registration or another exemption from registration. However, since the new securities take on the character of the old securities, tacking of a holding period is generally permitted allowing for subsequent resales under Rule 144 (assuming all other conditions have been satisfied for use of such rule).

  Section 3(a)(9) Exchanges Surge in Popularity

  Section 3(a)(9) exchanges have recently gained in popularity as public companies attempt to manage liabilities and clean up their balance sheets in the face of a down economy. Section 3(a)(9) exchanges can be used to reduce interest payments or accruals (by exchanging high rate debt for lower rate or by exchanging accrued interest or preferred payments for equity); reduce or eliminate outstanding debt (by exchanging debt for equity) and to modify the terms of existing securities (for example, modifying conversion ratios and redemption provisions).

  The advantages of a Section 3(a)(9) exchange include: (i) can be completed quickly as there is no registration required; (ii) are flexible (an issuer can retire partial or entire liabilities); (iii) minimal costs; and (iv) often can be accomplished largely tax free for debt holders. The disadvantages include: (i) the new securities may be restricted depending on the status of the old securities offered in exchange or the availability of Rule 144 tacking of a holding period; and (ii) no commissions or other compensation can be paid, such as to a broker or investment banker.

  Four Criteria of Section 3(a)(9)

  The four main requirements of Section 3(a)(9) are as follows: (i) same Issuer – the issuer of the old securities being surrendered must be the same as the issuer of the new securities; (ii) no additional consideration from the security holder; (iii) offer must be made exclusively with existing security holders; and (iv) no commission or compensation may be paid for soliciting the exchange.

  Section 3(a)(9) exempts any securities exchange by the issuer with its security holders. This means that the new securities being issued and the securities that are being surrendered must be from the same issuer. The “same issuer” can at times be a successor issuer. The SEC has taken the position that where an Issuer has fully and unconditionally assumed the obligations of the debt securities of another issuer, the subsequent exchange of that debt by the successor issuer qualifies as a Section 3(a)(9) exchange. Presumably the successor issuer has become the “issuer” by fully and unconditionally assuming the obligation.

  Parent Company and Subsidiary Considered Two Separate Issuers

  A parent and subsidiary are generally considered two separate issuers. Accordingly, if a subsidiary proposes to exchange debt that is guaranteed by the parent, for debt that is not guaranteed by the parent , the exchange would not qualify under Section 3(a)(9). However, the SEC has granted no-action relief for parent/subsidiary exchange transactions in particular fact circumstances.

  The prohibition against paying commission or other compensation for the solicitation of an exchange, does not include the payment of administrative or ministerial fees solely for document preparation, mailing or legal opinions.

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: corporate compliance, form 10-k, form 10-q, form 8-k, going public, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, Section 3(a)(9), securities act of 1933, securities attorney, securities disclosure requirements, securities registrations exemptions

• 09Dec

  When Can Separate Issuer Offerings That Occur Within a Short Time Be Integrated?

  SEC Law Firm No Comments

  The integration doctrine prevents issuers from circumventing the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1934 by determining whether two or more securities offerings are really one offering that does not qualify as an exempt offering, or an exempt offering is really part of a registered public offering.

  Securities Act Release No. 33-4552 (November 6, 1962) sets forth a five factor test that is used as a guideline in determining whether the separate offerings of an issuer that occur within a short time of one another will be integrated. These same factors are set forth in the Note to Rule 502(a) of Regulation D, which factors address whether the offerings:

  1. are part of a single plan of financing;
  2. involve the issuance of the same class of securities (convertible securities, warrants, and other
  3. derivative instruments generally are deemed to be the same class as the underlying security unless the terms of the primary security prohibit exercises until at least the one year anniversary date);
  4. are made at or about the same time;
  5. involve the same type of consideration is to be received; and
  6. are made for the same general purpose.

  Rule 502(a) provides for a six-month (soon to be 90 days) safe harbor wherein multiple private offerings that are conducted at least six (6) months apart will not be integrated. In addition, a private offering that is conducted at least six (6) months before or after a registered or exempt public offering will not be integrated with the public offering. Fortunately, effective February 4, 2008, the SEC changed the length of integration safe harbor from six (6) months to ninety (90) days.

  In addition, Rule 155 sets forth a safe harbor for abandoned private and public offerings (Release No. 33-7943, effective March 7, 2001). Generally, the rule creates safe harbors to allow: (i) a public offering immediately following an abandoned private offering and (ii) a private offering thirty (30) days after an abandoned public offering, without integrating the public and private offerings in either situation. These safe harbors provide issuers with more flexibility to react to volatile capital market conditions.

  Rule 155 does not replace, but rather supplements, the five factor test that will be used whenever the safe harbor is inapplicable. For example, the five-factor test, rather than Rule 155, would apply when evaluating whether two or more private offerings should be integrated with each other. Moreover, Rule 155 recognizes only Sections 4(2) and 4(6) and Rule 506 offerings as exempt offerings. Finally, Rule 155 is not available for shelf registration statements.

  Concurrent Private and Registered Offerings in PIPE Transactions

  The primary legal consideration in any PIPE (private investment in public entity) investment is ensuring that the issuer takes all steps necessary to make the investment a valid private placement. The issuer must conduct the PIPE offering in a manner that does not involve any general solicitation or advertisement. In this context, an issuer that had considered a public offering and filed a registration statement with the SEC may be deemed to have engaged in a general solicitation for the offering, and the issuer would have to completely abandon that offering by withdrawing the registration statement for a period of time before engaging in the PIPE transaction.

  SEC Rule 155

  Rule 155 does not alter the position taken by the SEC staff in its no-action letters to Black Box Inc. and Squadron, Ellenoff, Pleasant & Lehrer. In these letters, the staff indicated that it would not integrate a registered offering and a concurrent unregistered offering made only to Qualified Institutional Buyers (as defined by Rule 144A under the 1933 Act) and no more than two or three large accredited institutional investors.

  Given that a PIPE transaction inherently involves a private placement of securities and a subsequent public offering, the PIPE transaction has higher integration risks. To ensure that the PIPE transaction is respected as two separate transactions, the initial private placement must be “complete” prior to filing of any registration statement for the underlying securities. In the standard PIPE transaction, meeting this requirement normally does not pose a problem since the registration statement is filed following the closing of the PIPE transaction.

  Private Placement Completion

  The SEC will consider a private placement complete if: (a) all of the purchasers have fully paid the purchase price for the securities in the private offering, or (b ) each purchaser is irrevocably obligated to purchase a set number of securities, the purchase price is fixed and the transaction cannot be renegotiated.

  The SEC has permitted concurrent registered and private offerings to be made under the conditions set forth in its Black Box and other related “no action” letters (described above). A “Black Box PIPE” would be undertaken, for example, during a period when the company has on file an effective resale or shelf registration statement. In such situations, the SEC requires that the private offering be made only to: (a) persons who are qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) as defined in Rule 144A(a) under the Securities Act, and/or (b) no more than two or three large institutional accredited investors.

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: going public, Over The Counter Bulletin Board, PIPE offerings, PPM, private placement, public offering, regulation d, Reverse Mergers, Rule 144, rule 155, rule 502(a), SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, SEC Rule 144, SEC rule 155, securities attorney

• 07Dec

  Regulation A and Rule 504

  Securities Law Firm No Comments

  Section 3(b) of the Securities Act gives the SEC authority to exempt from registration certain offerings where the securities to be offered involve relatively small dollar amounts. Under this provision, the SEC has adopted Regulation A, a conditional ex-emption for certain public offerings not exceeding $5 million in any 12-month period. An offering statement (consisting of a notification, offering circular, and exhibits) must be filed with the SEC Regional Office in the region where the company’s principal business activities are conducted. Although Regulation A is technically an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act, it is often referred to as a “short form” of registration since the offering circular (similar in content to a prospectus) must be sup-plied to each purchaser and the securities issued are freely tradeable in an aftermarket.

  The principal advantages of Regulation A offerings, as opposed to full registration on Form S-1, SB-1 or SB-2, are:

  1. Required financial statements are simpler and need not be audited; and
  2. There are no periodic SEC reporting requirements (other than sales reports fol-lowing the sale of the securities) unless the issuer has more than $10 million in total assets and more than 500 shareholders.

  Regulation A and Offering Circulars

  There are three permitted offering circular formats under Regulation A, one of which is a simplified question-and answer document. This style of disclosure is useful to potential investors and may offer significant benefits to the issuer in the time expended and the costs of preparation.

  All types of companies which are not reporting under the Exchange Act may use Regu-lation A, except “blank check” companies and investment companies registered or re-quired to be registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

  In most cases, Regulation A may also be used by shareholders for the resale of up to $1.5 million of securities.

  “Test The Waters” Provision

  Regulation A includes a provision which allows an issuer to “test the waters” to deter-mine whether or not there is any investor interest in its securities before the filing of a complete offering document. Thus, an issuer may publish factual information about its business or proposed business before incurring a full range of legal, accounting and other costs, in order to gauge potential investor interest in a possible securities offering; however, the provision specifically provides that no money may be solicited or accepted until an offering statement has been qualified by the Commission, and prescribed offer-ing materials have been delivered to potential investors.

  Rule 504

  Rule 504 of Regulation D provides an exemption for the offer and sale of up to $1,000,000 of securities in a 12-month period. The issuer may use this exemption so long as it is not a blank check company and is not subject to Exchange Act reporting re-quirements. Like the other Regulation D exemptions, in general the issuer may not use public solicitation or advertising to market the securities and purchasers receive “re-stricted” securities. However, an issuer can use this exemption for a public offering of its securities and investors will receive freely tradable securities under certain specific cir-cumstances.

  Filing of Form D

  There are no periodic SEC reporting requirements (other than filing Form D) unless the Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels pri-vate and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: form d, form s-1, form sb-1, form sb-2, going public, Over The Counter Bulletin Board, regulation a offerings, regulation d, regulation d exemptions, Reverse Mergers, rule 504, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, section 3(b), securities attorney

• 04Dec

  SEC Stock Buyback Rules Examined

  Corporate Law Firm No Comments

  SEC Rule 10b-18 provides issuers with a safe harbor from liability for market manipulation under Sections 9(a)(2) and 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act when issuers bid for or repurchase their common stock in the market in accordance with the Rule’s manner, timing, price and volume conditions. Each of the conditions of Rule 10b-18 must be satisfied on each day that a repurchase is made.

  Rule 10b-18

  The material portions of Rule 10b-18 are as follows:

  Definition. A “Rule 10b-18 purchase” is generally defined as a purchase or any bid or limit order of an issuer’s common stock by or for the issuer or any of the issuer’s affiliated purchasers.

  To be able to rely on Rule 10b-18 in make repurchases, the following four (4) conditions must be met.

  1. Time of Purchase. The Rule restricts issuers from making repurchases that constitute the opening transaction in the security on a trading day, or that occur during the last 30 minutes before the scheduled close of trading. However, the limitations on purchases at the close vary depending on the average daily trading volume (”ADTV”) and public float. Issuers with more liquid securities (i.e. issuers with an ADTV of $1 mil-lion or more and a public float value of $150 million or more) would be restricted from bidding for or purchasing their securities during any of the following periods: (1) in the 10 minutes before the scheduled close of the regular trading session in the principal market for the security; (2) the 10 minutes before the scheduled close of the regular trading session in the market where the purchase is made; and (3) after the termination of the period in which last sales prices are reported in the consolidated system.
  2. Price of Purchases. The purchase price cannot exceed the higher of the highest independent bid or the last independent transaction price.
  3. Volume of Purchases. The Rule limits the amount of securities an issuer may repurchase on the market on a single day to 25% of the four-week average daily trading volume in its shares (that is, the average daily trading volume during the four calendar weeks prior to the week in which the 10b-18 purchase is to be made). However, issuers are permitted to make one block purchase of its common stock per week outside of the volume restrictions. Issuers have to include block purchases in applying the 25% vol-ume limitation. However, issuers would also be permitted to include block purchases in calculating the ADTV for their securities, thereby increasing the amount of stock able to be purchased within the safe harbor. The Rule defines a “block” as a quantity of stock that (1) has a purchase price of $200,000 or more, (2) is at least 5,000 shares and has a purchase price of at least $50,000, or (3) is at least 20 round lots of the security and totals 150% or more of the ADTV of that security. As an alternative to the 25% vol-ume limitation, issuers are allowed purchase up to a daily aggregate amount of 500 shares regardless of the ADTV of the security. Thus, an issuer’s purchases, on any single day, may not exceed the higher of 25% of the ADTV for the issuer’s security or a daily aggregate amount of 500 shares.
  4. Manner. The Rule requires an issuer to use only one broker or dealer (per day) to bid for or purchase its common stock.

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels pri-vate and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: going public, Over The Counter Bulletin Board, Reverse Mergers, Rule 10b-18, SEC buyback rules, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, SEC Rule 10b-18, securities attorney

• 27Nov

  Transparency in the Financial Markets and the Materiality Standards

  Securities Attorneys No Comments

  The disclosure requirements at the heart of the federal securities laws involve a delicate and complex balancing act. Too little information provides an inadequate basis for investment decisions; too much can muddle and diffuse disclosure and thereby lessen its usefulness. The legal concept of materiality provides the dividing line between what information companies must disclose, and must disclose correctly, and everything else. Materiality, however, is a highly judgmental standard, often colored by a variety of factual presumptions.

  Transparency in Financial Markets

  The guiding purpose of the many and complex disclosure provisions of the federal securities laws is to promote “transparency” in the financial markets. However, the task of winnowing out the irrelevant, redundant and trivial from the potentially meaningful material falls on corporate executives and their professional advisors in the creation of corporate disclosure, and on investment advisors, stock analysts and individual investors in its interpretation. The concept of materiality represents the dividing line between information reasonably likely to influence investment decisions and everything else. However, materiality is a notoriously elusive, ever changing and unpredictable concept.

  Only those misstatements and omissions that are material violate many provisions of the securities laws, including the bedrock provisions requiring accurate financial reporting. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court set the standard for a materiality evaluation, which standard remains today. In TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., the Supreme Court held that information should be deemed material if there exists a substantial likelihood that it would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of information available to the public.

  All Facts Must be Considered

  Despite this standard, the concept remains fact driven and difficult to apply. There are no numeric thresholds to establish materiality, and market reaction is inconsistent and not always available. Ultimately professionals and company management must consider all facts and circumstances available to them on any given day to determine the materiality of a given disclosure in light of the standard established by the Supreme Court in TSC Industries.

  Generally, professionals and company management must look in the first instance at specific disclosure guidelines set out in the federal securities rules and regulations (such as Regulations S-X and S-K and Forms 10-Q, 10-K and 8-K). Secondly, professionals and company management must consider all facts presently affecting the Company. For instance, a specific disclosure may be highly relevant in light of current economic conditions and of little importance in a different economic climate. Ethical issues are generally not considered material, unless specifically required by statute (such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

  Selective Disclosure Prohibited

  The SEC has issued further guidance on materiality in Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 (SAB 99). Although SAB 99 is meant to clarify some materiality issues, many practitioners find that it confuses rather than clarifies. For the most part SAB 99 simply reiterates that materiality cannot be defined by law or standards but must be determined anew for each fact and disclosure issue.

  In determining materiality practitioners should keep in mind Regulation FD which prohibits the selective disclosure of material information. That is, Regulation FD requires that if material information is to be disclosed, it must be disclosed to the entire market, either through a press release or Form 8-K or both, and not selectively, such as to certain analysts or market professionals.

  Professionals and company management should also consider that the SEC has consistently pushed for greater and more complete disclosures. Accordingly, it is better to err on the side of disclosure than against it.

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: corporate compliance, form 10-k, form 10-q, form 8-k, going public, Reverse Mergers, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, securities attorney, securities disclosure requirements, staff accounting bulletin no. 99

• 23Nov

  10b5-1 Trading Plans and Material Non-Public Information

  SEC Law Firm No Comments

  As a safe harbor from insider trading liability, Rule 10b5-1 provides that a purchase or sale of securities will not be deemed to be on the basis of material nonpublic information if it is pursuant to a contract, instruction or plan that (i) was entered into before the person became aware of the information; (ii) specifies the amounts, prices, and dates for transactions under the plan (or includes a formula for determining them); and (iii) does not later allow the person to influence how, when or whether transactions will occur.

  Good Faith Practices When Establishing Trading Plans

  In addition, the plan must be entered into in good faith and not as part of a scheme to evade the insider trading laws. Particular care should be taken to avoid adopting or amending trading plans when in possession of material nonpublic information. On June 4, 2009, The SEC filed an insider trading complaint against Angelo Mozilo, the former CEO of Countrywide Financial although all complained of trades were within a 10b5-1 trading plan. The SEC alleges that Mr. Mozila had material nonpublic information about Countrywide’s deteriorating business when he instituted his trading plans. In addition, the SEC found it especially relevant that Mr. Mozila instituted four separate plans in a three month period and that trading began almost immediately in each plan, all while the Company was failing, a fact which was not public knowledge.

  Recent SEC Points of Guidance

  The SEC’s staff recently provided new guidance about Rule 10b5-1 plans in its Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations. The following is a brief discussion of the key points in the guidance.

  First, the SEC has made clear that delaying the commencement of sales until the release of nonpublic information may not legitimize the plan. The SEC takes the position that a person may not rely on a Rule 10b5-1 plan when he or she institutes a trading plan while aware of material non-public information, even if the plan is structured to delay all transactions until after the information becomes public.

  Second, the Rule 10b5-1 plan defense to insider trading is only available for plans that are entered into in good faith and not as part of a “plan or scheme to evade” insider trading laws. The SEC has stated that this requirement will be assessed in light of all relevant facts, specifically including the time period between canceling one trading plan and establishing a new one. It is advised that insiders observe a “cooling off” period between terminating and establishing trading plans.

  Finally, the new interpretations confirm that a corporate insider may transfer a long standing 10b5-1 plan to a new broker, if the broker that has been executing the plan’s transactions goes out of business, even if the insider knows of material nonpublic information at the time of transfer. Provided, however, the transfer must be timed to avoid any cancellation of transactions under the plan and the new broker must observe the plan’s original terms.

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: corporate insider, going public, insider trading, material non-public information, Rule 10b5-1, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, securities attorney

• 17Nov

  Proper Use of S-8 Registration Statements

  SEC Law Firm No Comments

  A Form S-8 registration statement is popular with small business issuers because it becomes effective immediately upon filing and allows for incorporation by reference, two benefits not always available to smaller public companies. A Form S-8 registration statement can be used by Issuers to register securities to be offered to employees under certain employee benefit plans.

  To qualify to use an S-8 registration statement the Issuer must: (i) be subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; (ii) have filed all reports required to be filed during the preceding 12 months, or such shorter period of time that the Issuer has been subject to the reporting requirements; (iii) is not a shell company and has not been a shell company for at least 60 calendar days previously; and (iv) if it has been a shell company at any time previously, has filed current Form 10 information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) at least 60 days previously reflecting that it is no longer a shell company.

  S-8 Stock, Employees and Consultants

  An S-8 registration statement is used to register securities to be offered to employees under certain employee benefit plans. For purposes of an S-8 the term employee benefit plan means any written purchase, savings, option, bonus, appreciation, profit sharing, thrift, incentive, pension or similar plan or written compensation contract solely for employees, directors, general partners, trustees (where the registrant is a business trust), officers, or consultants or advisors.

  Form S-8 is available for the issuance of securities to consultants or advisors only if: (i) they are natural persons; (ii) they provide bona fide services to the registrant; and (iii) the services are not in connection with the offer or sale of securities in a capital raising transaction, and do not directly or indirectly promote or maintain a market in the Issuer’s securities. Accordingly, the SEC has taken the position that Form S-8 cannot be used to register an employee benefit plan that allows for the issuance of securities to unqualified consultants or advisors, even if the Issuer does not intend to issue such securities under the plan following registration.

  S-8 and Employee Benefit Options

  The Form S-8 is also available for the exercise of employee benefit plan options and the subsequent resale of the underlying securities by an employee’s family member who has acquired the options from the employee through a gift or a domestic relations order. The payment of compensation by the family member will disqualify the use of Form S-8. The S-8 registration is strictly for use by qualifying individuals. If an employee transfers options received under a benefit plan, to a non-employee other than a family member, such recipient may not use the S-8 registration to exercise the option and receive registered shares. Accordingly, upon exercise of the option, the third party would receive restricted, unregistered shares.

  Form S-8 and Bad Boy Provisions

  Form S-8 is also subject to the Securities Act of 1933 bad boy provisions. That is, any Issuer or any entity that at the time was a subsidiary of the issuer, that within the past three years “was convicted of any felony or misdemeanor described in paragraphs (i) through (iv) of [S]ection 15(b)(4)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934” if ineligible to use Form S-8. The described wrongdoings include convictions which: (i) involves the purchase or sale of any security, the taking of a false oath, the making of a false report, bribery, perjury, burglary, any substantially equivalent activity however denominated by the laws of the relevant foreign government, or conspiracy to commit any such offense; (ii) arises out of the conduct of the business of a broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, government securities broker, government securities dealer, investment adviser, bank, insurance company, fiduciary, transfer agent, nationally recognized statistical rating organization, foreign person performing a function substantially equivalent to any of the above, or entity or person required to be registered under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) or any substantially equivalent foreign statute or regulation; (iii) involves the larceny, theft, robbery, extortion, forgery, counterfeiting, fraudulent concealment, embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, or misappropriation of funds, or securities, or substantially equivalent activity however denominated by the laws of the relevant foreign government; or (iv) involves the violation of section 152, 1341, 1342, or 1343 or chapter 25 or 47 of Title 18, or a violation of a substantially equivalent foreign statute.

  Securities attorney Laura Anthony provides expert legal advice and ongoing corporate counsel to small public Companies as well as private Companies seeking to go public on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board Exchange (OTCBB). Ms. Anthony counsels private and small public Companies nationwide regarding reverse mergers, due diligence on public shells, corporate transactions and all aspects of securities law.

  Ms. Anthony is the Founding Partner of Legal & Compliance, LLC, a national corporate, securities and civil litigation law firm based in West Palm Beach, Florida. The firm’s corporate and securities attorneys provide technical legal services to small and mid-size private and public (OTCBB) Companies, entrepreneurs, and business professionals nationwide. Contact us today for a FREE consultation!

  Tags: bad boy provisions, form s-8, going public, registration statement, SEC Law Firm, SEC reporting requirements, securities attorney, securities issuers

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »